ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 18, 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF ARGONNE NATIONAL
LABORATORY FOR AN ADJUSTED
STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
218.182
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 03-4
(Adjusted Standard - Air)
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL WILLIAM D. LUCK APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER, and
RACHEL DOCTORS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
On April 22, 2003, Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) filed a petition for an
adjusted standard from Board regulations that limit air emissions of volatile organic material
(VOM) from stationary sources. Specifically, Argonne asks for an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 218.182, which restricts the use of cold cleaning degreasers in the Chicago ozone
nonattainment area.
1
Argonne, which occupies a 1,500-acre site in DuPage County, is owned by the United
States Department of Energy and operated by the University of Chicago. Pet. at 1. Argonne
states that some of its research requires the surfaces of samples and related equipment to be
completely free of residual contaminants, necessitating the use of common laboratory solvents
with vapor pressures that exceed the regulation’s limit. Pet. at 4.
The Board initially assigned docket number AS 03-3 to the case. On May 15, 2003, the
Board dismissed the case and closed docket AS 03-3 because Argonne failed to timely publish
newspaper notice of its adjusted standard petition. On May 19, 2003, Argonne re-filed the
petition, also moving the Board to incorporate the AS 03-3 record into the record of the new
proceeding, which the Board has docketed AS 03-4. On June 19, 2003, the Board issued an
order accepting the newly filed petition and granting Argonne’s motion to incorporate the record
of AS 03-3 into the record.
1
The Chicago ozone nonattainment area is comprised of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry,
and Will Counties, Aux Sable Township and Goose Lake Township in Grundy County, and
Oswego Township in Kendall County. The area does not meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
under the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7409).
2
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) recommended granting the
adjusted standard both in its August 1, 2003 Recommendation, and at the September 16, 2003
hearing.
Based upon the record before it, the Board finds that Argonne has provided sufficient
justification for each of the Section 28.1 factors. The Board grants Argonne an adjusted standard
from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.182, as outlined in this order.
ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
The Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1
et seq
., (2003)) and Board rules
provide that a petitioner may request, and the Board may grant, an environmental standard that is
different from the generally applicable standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner.
This is called an adjusted standard. The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard
proceeding are found at Section 28.1 of the Act and Part 104, Subpart D of the Board’s
procedural rules. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2003); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.400
et al
.
The Board rules for the content requirements of the petition and Agency recommendation
are found at Section 104.406 and Section 104.416, respectively. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406,
104.416.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2003, Argonne filed this petition with the Board for an adjusted standard
from the cold cleaning degreasing rules. On May 24, 2003, Argonne published notice of the
petition in the
Chicago Sun Times
, and filed the certificate of publication with the Board on
June 10, 2003. The Agency filed its recommendation (Rec.) that the Board grant Argonne’s
requested relief on August 1, 2003.
On September 16, 2003, Hearing Officer Bradley Halloran conducted a hearing in this
matter at 414 North Wood Dale Road, Wood Dale, DuPage County. Both Argonne and the
Agency presented one witness, and submitted pre-filed testimony. Neither party filed a closing
brief in this matter. No members of the public were present at the hearing. Tr. at 4.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Argonne National Laboratory is a United States government-owned, contractor-operated
research and development facility located on a 1,500 acre site at 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne,
DuPage County. Pet. at 3. The facility is surrounded by the 2,240-acre Waterfall Glen Forest
Preserve.
Id.
The laboratory is operated for the United States Department of Energy by the
University of Chicago, and is a multi-program basic research and development laboratory
employing approximately 3,200 people.
Id.
Argonne’s Agency air pollution control site identification number is 043802AAA. Pet. at
3. The facility’s major source of emissions is the Central Heating Plant that consists of five
boilers.
Id
. Argonne contends that it performs many cold cleaning activities at the facility, such
as conventional machining operations, that are in compliance with the requirements of 35 Ill.
3
Adm. Code 218.182. Pet. at 4. However, staff at the facility also performs research
applications involving x-rays, vacuum systems and analytical instrumentation for research at the
atomic and sub-atomic levels.
Id
. Argonne asserts that these activities require sample surface
areas to be completely free of any residual contamination, necessitating the use of a number of
common laboratory solvents such as methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, hexane, and toluene – each
of these solvents have vapor pressures that exceed the limitation of the regulation.
Id
.
Further, Argonne contends the exemptions to the regulation are not available for their
operation. Wipe cleaning, exempted from the definition of cold cleaning, cannot be used in
sample preparation due to problems resulting from low levels of particulate residue that could
have an adverse effect on analytical results. Pet. at 4. The exemption for the use of cold
cleaning electronic components does not encompass the procedures associated with the testing
and analysis process of the research samples. Pet. at 5.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Cold cleaning is defined as “the process of cleaning and removing soils from surfaces by
spraying, brushing, flushing or immersion while maintaining the organic solvent below its
boiling point.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.1310.
The regulation from which Argonne seeks relief provides in pertinent part:
Section 218.182 Cold Cleaning
b) Equipment Requirements: No person shall operate a cold cleaning
degreaser unless:
1) The degreaser is equipped with a cover which is closed whenever
parts are not being handled in the cleaner. The cover shall be
designed to be easily operated with one hand or with the
mechanical assistance of springs, counter-weights or a powered
system if:
A) The solvent vapor pressure is greater than 2 kPa (15 mmHg
or 0.3 psi) measured at 38
o
C (100
o
F);
B) The solvent is agitated; or
C) The solvent is heated above ambient room temperature.
2) The degreaser is equipped with a device for draining cleaned parts.
The drainage device shall be constructed so that parts are enclosed
under the cover while draining unless:
4
A) The solvent vapor
pressure
is less than 4.3 kPa (32 mmHg or 0.6 psi) measured at 38
o
C
(100
o
F); or
B) an internal drainage device cannot be fitted into the cleaning
system, in which case the drainage device may be external.
3) The degreaser is equipped with one of the following control
devices if the vapor pressure of the solvent is greater than 4.3 kPa
(32 mmHg or 0.6 psi) measured at 38
o
C (100
o
F) or if the solvent is
heated above 50
o
C (120
o
F) or its boiling point:
A) A freeboard height of 7/10 of the inside width of the tank
or 91 cm (36 in), whichever is less; or
B) Any other equipment or system of equivalent emission
control as approved by the Agency and further processed
consistent with Section 218.108 of this Part. Such a system
may include a water cover, refrigerated chiller or carbon
absorber.
4) A permanent conspicuous label summarizing the operating
procedure is affixed to the degreaser; and
5) If a solvent spray is used, the degreaser is equipped with a solid
fluid stream spray, rather than a fine, atomized or shower spray.
c) Material Requirements:
1) On and after March 15, 1999, no person shall:
A) Cause or allow the sale of solvent with a vapor pressure
which exceeds 2.0 mmHg (0.038 psi) measured at 20
o
C
(68
o
F) in units greater than five gallons, for use in cold
cleaning degreasing operations located in the area covered
by Section 218.103 of this Part.
B) Operate a cold cleaning degreaser with a solvent vapor
pressure which exceeds 2.0 mmHg (0.038 psi) measured at
20
o
C (68
o
F).
2) On and after March 15, 2001, no person shall:
A) Cause or allow the sale of solvent with a vapor pressure
which exceeds 1.0 mmHg (0.019 psi) measured at 20
o
C
(68
o
F) in units greater than five gallons, for use in cold
5
cleaning degreasing operations located in the
area covered by Section 218.103 of this Part.
B) Operate a cold cleaning degreaser with a solvent vapor
pressure which exceeds 1.0 mmHg (0.019 psi) measured at
20
o
C (68
o
F).
d) Recordkeeping Requirements: On and after March 15, 1999:
1) All persons subject to the requirements of subsections(c)(1)(A) and
(c)(2)(A) of this Section must maintain records which include for
each sale:
A) The name and address of the solvent purchaser;
B) The date of sale;
C) The type of solvent;
D) The unit volume of solvent;
E) The total volume of solvent; and
F) The vapor pressure of the solvent measured in mmHg at 20
o
C (68
o
F).
2) All persons subject to the requirements of subsections (c)(1)(B)
and (c)(2)(B) of this Section must maintain records which include
for each purchase:
A) The name and address of the solvent supplier;
B) The date of purchase;
C) The type of solvent; and
D) The vapor pressure of the solvent measured in mmHg at
20
o
C (68
o
F).
e) All records required by subsection (d) of this Section shall be retained for
three years and shall be made available to the Agency upon request. 35
Ill. Adm. Code 218.182.
Argonne seeks an adjusted standard from the vapor pressure requirements of 218.182(c)
as well as the associated equipment requirements of 218.182(b) and the record keeping
requirements of 218.182(d). Pet. at 2-3. Because the Chicago metropolitan region was
6
designated an ozone non-attainment area under the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act,
Illinois has instituted a number of measures, including the regulation at issue, as part of its
program to bring the region into attainment as required by the Clean Air Act. Pet. at 2. The
regulation derives from the requirements of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et. seq.), but is not
specifically directed by that statute.
Id
.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Both parties assert that the regulation of general applicability at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
218.182 does not specify a level of justification for an adjusted standard. Pet. at 8; Rec. at 4.
The Board agrees with the parties’ assertion. Therefore, pursuant to Section 28.1(c) of the Act,
the burden of proof is on the petitioner to demonstrate that:
1. Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general
regulation applicable to that petitioner;
2. The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;
3. The requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by
the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and
4. The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 415
ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.426(a).
ARGONNE’S PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
Argonne proposes the following adjusted standard for adoption by the Board:
The adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.182 applies to Argonne National
Laboratory, a research laboratory located near Waterfall Glen Forest Preserve, in DuPage County,
Illinois. The requirements of this adjusted standard shall apply only to cold cleaning involving
the preparation of sample materials and associated apparatus used for research and development
testing and analysis activities. These activities are subject to the following requirements:
The research and development related cleaning activities include, but are not limited to,
washing and rinsing slides, drying glassware, sample preparation, specimen cleaning, gel
stain/destaining, membrane rinsing, and the cleaning of small parts and equipment associated with
the preparation of sample materials for testing and analysis.
The requirements of this adjusted standard do not apply where solvents meeting the
vapor pressure limits of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.182 can be used without compromising the
quality of the equipment being used or the validity of research results. Pet. at 6-7.
7
AGENCY’S RECOMMENDATION
The Agency recommends that the Board grant Argonne’s petition. Rec. at 1,10. The
Agency concludes that Argonne has met the required level of justification because it has
demonstrated that there are factors substantially and significantly different than those relied upon
by the Board when it adopted its regulation limiting the solvent vapor pressure used for cold
cleaning, and that the factors that Argonne believes entitle it to regulatory relief, do justify an
adjusted standard. Rec. at 5.
The Agency concurs with Argonne’s assertion that there are no technically feasible or
economically reasonable alternatives available as required by Section 28.1 of the Act. Rec. at 8.
The Agency agrees that the estimated additional one ton per year of VOM emissions is minimal
and that the environmental impact from the adjusted standard will, likewise, be minimal. Rec. at
8. The Agency contends the adjusted standard will not result in environmental or health effects
substantially or significantly more adverse than the effects envisioned by the Board in adopting
the rule. Rec. at 9. The Agency believes that Argonne has made the required showing that no
reasonable alternative to using solvent with a higher vapor pressure for the cold cleaning and
preparation of sample materials exists.
Id
.
The Agency contends that the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law.
Rec. at 10. The Agency asserts that while the emissions reductions resulting from the regulation
in question are required by the Clean Air Act, the method of achieving the reductions (control of
emissions from degreasing activities) are not. Rec. at 5. The Agency also maintains that the
granting of the petition would be consistent with the Illinois Rate-of-Progress (ROP) SIP for
achieving the NAAQS for ozone as the expected emissions are
de minimus
.
Id
.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Argonne and the Agency each presented one witness at hearing. Each witness also
prefiled testimony that was accepted into evidence at the hearing.
Gregory Barrett
Gregory Barrett (Barrett) testified on behalf of Argonne. He has been employed with the
group responsible for environmental compliance at Argonne for eleven years. Barrett at 1. His
primary area of responsibility is to evaluate and implement all federal and state regulatory
requirements related to the Clean Air Act.
Id
.
Barrett testified that due to the very stringent requirements of the research and the
limitations of specific equipment involved, it would be difficult to comply with 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 218.182 without compromising the quality of the equipment of validity of the research.
Barrett at 2. Barrett testified that the use of organic solvents that do not meet the cold cleaning
vapor pressure requirements is necessary for cold cleaning activities involving the preparation of
sample materials and associated apparatus for testing and analysis.
Id
.
Barrett testified that environmental impact from the requested adjusted standard is
expected to be negligible. Barrett at 3. He estimated that no more than 200 gallons,
8
approximately 1500 pounds, on an annual basis of solvents are used for cold cleaning.
Id
.
Barrett stated that a conservative determination of the amount of solvents used for cold cleaning
would be approximately 1 ton per year. Tr. at 18. He testified that typically the cold cleaning
performed at the facility is not done in a conventional cold cleaning degreasing system. Tr. at
19. Barrett testified that the nature of volatile organic solvents with higher vapor pressures – the
ability to evaporate quickly – is the characteristic needed to perform acceptable cleaning
activities in certain research applications, and that the use of a wiping technique would result in
unacceptable residues on the item to be cleaned. Barrett at 3.
Barrett testified that the record keeping aspects of the existing regulation would impose a
significant burden on the Argonne research community that outweighs any benefit. Barrett at 3.
He stated that complying with the record keeping requirements of the existing regulation would
be difficult because it is an unreasonable and unfair burden to require hundreds of researchers at
the facility to keep track of every type of solvent with respect to usage. Tr. at 20. Barrett testified
that the total usage of solvent is tracked, but that it includes uses other than cold cleaning.
Tr.
at
29.
Michael D. Rogers
Michael D. Rogers (Rogers) testified for the Agency. Rogers is employed in the
Agency’s Bureau of Air, and was involved in the development of Section 218.182. Rogers at 1.
He testified that the requirements of the regulation are intended to reduce the evaporation of the
solvent being used, and that VOM emissions in the Chicago area are being reduced by
approximately 22 tons per day from 1998 levels due to the implementation of the regulation.
Id
.
Rogers testified that the research and development testing and analysis activities
performed by Argonne are not the typical activities intended to be affected by the cold cleaning
regulation, and that the Agency acknowledges that Argonne’s activities and requirements are
unique from typical cold cleaning operations. Rogers at 1. He stated that Argonne does not
utilize typical cold cleaning apparatus, and uses milliliters, rather than gallons, of solvents, and
laboratory beakers rather than a sink. Rogers at 1-2.
Rogers testified that the Agency does not require the total usage of solvents at the facility
to be tracked by other entities subject to the existing regulation, and that such a requirement
would not help the Agency with any compliance activity towards Argonne in this situation. Tr. at
32. Rogers testified that in a 1999 inventory of the Chicago nonattainment area ozone precursor
emissions, the Agency estimated that approximately 660 tons of man-made VOM emissions are
generated each summer day in the six-county area. Rogers at 2. Rogers stated that even if the
estimated use increased twofold, it would be relatively insignificant and would not affect air
quality in light of the 660 tons emitted per day in the area. Tr. at 37-38.
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE AND ALTERNATIVES
Argonne asserts it has made a concerted effort since 1998 to identify and substitute
replacement solvents that comply with Section 218.182(c), but there remain cases where
acceptable substitutes have not been found. Pet. at 5. Argonne states that meeting the regulatory
9
requirement would jeopardize a number of particular Argonne research programs and,
therefore, the research and development mission of the facility.
Id.
Argonne asserts that acetone has been used as an acceptable substitute in some
applications, but that the very low flashpoint of acetone makes it a potential fire hazard, and for
safety reasons it cannot be substituted in all cold cleaning applications. Pet. at 5. Argonne states
that the issue of compliance is a quality control issue where there are no feasible alternatives,
rather than an issue of the cost of compliance. Pet. at 5-6. Argonne does not, therefore, discuss
compliance alternatives or their corresponding costs.
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS
Argonne asserted that the transcript of the Board’s March 4, 1997 rulemaking hearing
(
See
9% ROP Plan Control Measures from VOM Emissions-Tightening Cold Cleaning
Requirements: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211, 218 and 219, Subpart E, R97-24)
makes clear that restrictions on the use of solvents for cold cleaning in research and development
applications were not among the issues before the Board. Pet. at 8. At that hearing, the Agency
specifically noted that the regulation “is intended to cover the manufacturers, suppliers, and
recyclers of solvent used in cold cleaning degreasers as well as the users of such solvent such
[as] the auto repair and refinishing and metal finishing shops.” Pet at 9,
citing
R97-24,
Tr.
at 10.
Argonne concludes that the focus of the rule was on retail businesses engaging in repetitive,
high-volume cold-cleaning operations, and that no mention of cold-cleaning applications for
research and development purposes is included. Pet. at 9.
Argonne argues that cold cleaning in research and development is most akin to the
cleaning of electronic components, specifically exempted from the regulation. Pet. at 10.
Argonne asserts that these two types of cleaning activities should be regulated similarly.
Id.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Argonne contends that emissions associated with the cold cleaning activities under the
proposed adjusted standard would be minimal, on the order of no more than approximately one
ton per year. Pet. at 7. Argonne asserts that the amount of solvent employed by Argonne
research staff in preparing samples or apparatus for research and development would be a bench
scale, ranging from a few milliliters up to a liter, and that such an amount of solvent used in
conjunction with bench scale laboratory equipment, in a connection other than cold cleaning
would be an insignificant emission level.
Id
.
Argonne asserts that the amount of solvents used annually that did not comply with the
current regulation would be expected to be in the same order of magnitude as the amount used
annually for laboratory activity categorized as insignificant pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
201.210(b)(11). Pet. at 8. Accordingly, Argonne concludes, the impact of these emissions on
the VOM inventory in the Chicago metropolitan ozone non-attainment area would be negligible.
Id.
Argonne contends that when compared with environmental and health effects that would
correspond to employing solvents for wipe cleaning (authorized by the existing regulation), the
10
impacts of the requested adjusted standard are not more adverse than those already allowable
under the regulation. Pet. at 10.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
Argonne contends that the relief it requests is consistent with federal law because the
federal regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart T that prescribe national emission standards for
halogenated solvent cleaning apply to batch and in-line cleaning, which are not forms of
cleaning at issue in the instant petition. Pet. at 11. Argonne asserts that the regulation is
consistent with the Clean Air Act. Pet. at 2. Argonne acknowledges that Illinois is committed
under the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of VOM by three percent each year from the 1990
baseline levels until attainment is reached. Pet. at 2, citing R97-24. However, Argonne contends
that the rulemaking record in Docket R97-24 establishes that the rate of progress provisions are
mandated by the Clean Air Act, but the regulation itself is not.
Id.
DISCUSSION
In summary, Argonne is seeking an adjusted standard from Board regulations that limit
air emissions of VOM from stationary sources, specifically 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.182, which
restricts the use of cold cleaning degreasers in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. The
Agency recommends that the Board grant the requested relief. If granted, the adjusted standard
would apply only to cold cleaning involving the preparation of sample materials and associated
apparatus used for research and development at Argonne’s DuPage County facility.
The Board finds that Argonne’s request for relief meets the statutory “fundamentally
different” factors of section 28.1(c) of the Act. Argonne has demonstrated that: (1) factors
relating to it are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the
Board in adopting the general regulation; (2) the existence of these factors justifies an adjusted
standard; (3) the requested standard will not cause substantially or significantly more adverse
environmental or health effects than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule of
general applicability; and (4) the adjusted standard is consistent with applicable federal laws.
415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2002).
Argonne bases its justification for the requested relief on the lack of a feasible alternative.
According to Argonne, the cost of compliance is not an issue because the issue of compliance is a
quality control issue where there are no feasible alternatives. Pet. at 5-6. Argonne does not,
therefore, discuss compliance alternatives or their corresponding costs.
Argonne asserts it has made a concerted effort since 1998 to identify and substitute
replacement solvents that comply with the vapor pressure requirements of Section 218.182(c),
but there remain cases where acceptable substitutes have not been found. Argonne has used
acetone in some situations, but is concerned that the low flashpoint of acetone makes it a
potential fire hazard and raises safety. Wipe Cleaning, exempted from the regulation, would
result in unacceptable residues on the item to be cleaned.
The Board finds that technically feasible and economically reasonable alternatives are not
available. Additionally, the VOM emissions that will result from the adjusted standard will not
11
cause negative health and environmental effects. The estimated resulting VOM
emissions of one ton per year are minimal when compared to the 660 tons of VOM emitted per
summer day in the Chicago nonattainment area.
The Board finds that the cold cleaning rule at Section 218.182 did not anticipate the use
of certain types of solvents for cold cleaning in research and development applications. Further,
the Board finds no inconsistency between granting Argonne’s requested relief and federal law.
In granting this adjusted standard, the Board is adopting language substantially similar to
that proposed. The changes are non-substantive, and intended to bring this order into conformity
with the Board’s usual drafting style in this type of cases.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact and conclusions of law.
CONCLUSION
The Board grants Argonne’s requested relief from the cold cleaning degreasers rule at
Section 218.182, as set forth below. As is usual, the relief is effective as of the date of this order.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in this
matter.
ORDER
1. Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, the Board
grants Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) an adjusted standard from
35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.182 effective December 18, 2003. The adjusted
standard applies to Argonne National Laboratory facility in DuPage
County (facility), located at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois
60439 as identified by Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s air
pollution control site identification number 043802AAA.
2. Pursuant to this adjusted standard, the applicable vapor pressure and other
associated requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.182 for shall not apply
only to cold cleaning involving the preparation of sample materials and
associated apparatus used for research and development testing and
analysis activities conducted at the facility subject to the following:
1) The research and development related cleaning activities include,
but are not limited to, washing and rinsing slides, drying
glassware, sample preparation, specimen cleaning, gel
stain/destaining, membrane rinsing, and the cleaning of small parts
and equipment associated with the preparation of sample materials
for testing and analysis.
2) The requirements of this adjusted standard do not apply where
solvents meeting the vapor pressure limits of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
12
218.182 can be used
without
compromising the quality of the equipment being used or the
validity of research results.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41(a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may
be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the
order. 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (2002);
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois
Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 Ill. 2d R. 335. The
Board’s procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final
orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.520;
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above opinion and order on December 18, 2003, by a vote of 5-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
